DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the Response dated 03/24/2026, claims 1, 9-10, 13, and 17 are amended and claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
3. The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 03/24/2026 was disapproved on 04/06/2026. Therefore, nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 are currently presented in this Action.
Claim Rejections - Nonstatutory Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky et al. (US 4,829,225 – hereinafter “Podrazhansky”).
The following table summarizes the correspondence between the limitations of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 and the limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769
Claim 1 of Present Application
A method, comprising:
determining a state-of-health value of a battery used for a primary application, wherein the state-of-health value of the battery is less than an original capacity value of the battery, the battery being connected to an electrical power source for re-conditioning;
determining a target state-of-health value for the battery and a number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value of the battery, each cycle in the number of cycles comprises at least one of: a charging the battery and a discharging the battery; and
re-conditioning the battery by cycling the battery using the number of cycles, wherein cycling comprises drawing electrical power from the electrical power source until a re-conditioned state-of-health value of the battery corresponding to a secondary application is reached,
wherein the target state-of-health value for the battery is determined using a battery aging model generated based on one or more prior re-conditionings of a plurality of batteries.
A method, comprising:
determining a state-of-health value of a battery, wherein the state-of-health value of the battery is less than an original capacity value of the battery, the battery being connected to an electrical power source for re-conditioning;
determining a target state-of-health value for the battery and a number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value of the battery, each cycle in the number of
cycles includes at least one of: a charging batter and a discharging battery; and
re-conditioning the battery by cycling the battery using the determined number of cycles, wherein cycling includes drawing electrical power from the electrical power source,
wherein the target state-of-health value for the battery and the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value are determined using a battery aging model generated based on one or more prior re-conditionings of a plurality of batteries.
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 does not explicitly teach determining the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value using the battery aging model, as specified by the method of claim 1 of the present application.
In contrast, Podrazhansky teaches a method for reconditioning a battery wherein a desired capacity of the battery and a number of charge and discharge cycles to achieve the desired capacity are determined. The battery is reconditioned through a certain number of charge and discharge cycles that achieves the desired battery capacity (col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 such that the battery aging model determines the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of reconditioning a battery to a desired capacity (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3).
Per claim 4, Podrazhansky teaches a method for reconditioning a battery wherein, upon completion of reconditioning, the capacity of the battery is restored. Therefore, the battery capacity may be determined to be at the desired capacity (col. 2, lines 37-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that the re-conditioning includes determining a re-conditioned state-of-health value of a battery after performing the re-conditioning. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of determining a restored capacity of a battery (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50).
Per claim 5, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky teaches the method according to claim 4, further comprising comparing the re-conditioned state-of-health value to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery; repeating the re-conditioning of the battery upon determining that the re-conditioned state-of-health value does not equal to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery; and disconnecting the battery from the electrical power source upon determining that the reconditioned state-of-health value equals to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery (Further use of the battery may cause the battery capacity to become less than a full charge capacity. At this time, reconditioning would occur to restore the battery capacity to the desired capacity. Once the desired capacity is achieved, a charger may be disconnected from the battery (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3)).
6. Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky in further view of Johnson et al. (US 2002/0146617 – hereinafter “Johnson”).
Per claim 2, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the battery comprises at least one of: a battery cell, a battery unit, a battery system, a battery brick, a battery brick group, and any combination thereof.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a procedure for performing battery reconditioning wherein a battery including a plurality of cells undergoes reconditioning (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that the battery comprises at least one battery cell. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a battery that is capable of powering a load (Johnson; Abstract).
Per clam 6, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 5, further comprising connecting another battery to the electrical power source for re-conditioning after disconnecting the battery; and repeating the determining a state-of-health value, determining a target state-of-health value and a number of cycles, and the re-conditioning for the another battery.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a battery recondition method wherein a plurality of battery packs are configured to be sequentially isolated from one another and reconditioned via switches (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that method further comprises connecting another battery to the electrical power source for re-conditioning after disconnecting the battery; and repeating the determining a state-of-health value, determining a target state-of-health value and a number of cycles, and the re-conditioning for the another battery. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of performing reconditioning on a battery system comprising a plurality of battery packs (Johnson; ¶29).
Per claim 7, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of batteries are connected to the electrical power source for reconditioning, each batter in the plurality of batteries is individually connected to the power source using corresponding converter and a relay component.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a battery recondition method wherein a plurality of battery packs are configured to be sequentially isolated from one another and reconditioned via switches (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 such that a plurality of batteries are connected to the electrical power source for reconditioning, each battery in the plurality of batteries is individually connected to the power source using corresponding converter and a relay component. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of performing reconditioning on a battery system comprising a plurality of battery packs (Johnson; ¶29).
Per claim 8, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky in further view of Johnson teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein an amount of electrical power demand for the plurality of batteries is determined based on an individual amount of power demanded by each battery in the plurality of batteries for at least one of the determining the state-of-health value for the battery, the re-conditioning of the battery, and any combination thereof (The amount of electrical power demand for each battery is determined by the desired capacity of the battery (Johnson; ¶28)).
7. Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky.
The following table summarizes the correspondence between the limitations of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 and the limitations of claim 9 of the present application.
Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769
Claim 9 of Present Application
A system comprising:
at least one programmable processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising:
determining a state-of-health value of a battery used for a primary application, wherein the state-of-health value of the battery is less than an original capacity value of the battery, the battery being connected to an electrical power source for re-conditioning;
determining a target state-of-health value for the battery and a number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value of the battery, each cycle in the number of cycles comprises at least one of: a charging the battery and a discharging the battery; and
re-conditioning the battery by cycling the battery using the number of cycles, wherein cycling comprises drawing electrical power from the electrical power source until a re-conditioned state-of-health value of the battery corresponding to a secondary application is reached,
wherein the target state-of-health value for the battery is determined using a battery aging model generated based on one or more prior re-conditionings of a plurality of batteries.
A system comprising:
at least one programmable processor; and
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by
the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising:
determining a state-of-health value of a battery, wherein the state-of-health value of the battery is less than an original capacity value of the battery, the battery being connected to an electrical power source for re-conditioning;
determining a target state-of-health value for the battery and a number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value of the battery, each cycle in the number of cycles includes at least one of: a charging the battery and a discharging the battery; and
re-conditioning the battery by cycling the battery using the determined number
of cycles, wherein cycling includes drawing electrical power from the electrical power
source,
wherein the target state-of-health value for the battery and the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value are determined using a battery aging model generated based on one or more prior re-conditionings of a plurality of batteries.
Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 does not explicitly teach determining the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value using the battery aging model, as specified by the system of claim 9 of the present application.
In contrast, Podrazhansky teaches a method for reconditioning a battery wherein a desired capacity of the battery and a number of charge and discharge cycles to achieve the desired capacity are determined. The battery is reconditioned through a certain number of charge and discharge cycles that achieves the desired battery capacity (col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 such that the battery aging model determines the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of reconditioning a battery to a desired capacity (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3).
Per claim 12, Podrazhansky teaches a method for reconditioning a battery wherein, upon completion of reconditioning, the capacity of the battery is restored. Therefore, the battery capacity may be determined to be at the desired capacity (col. 2, lines 37-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that the re-conditioning includes determining a re-conditioned state-of-health value of a battery after performing the re-conditioning. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of determining a restored capacity of a battery (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50).
Per claim 13, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky teaches the system according to claim 12, further comprising comparing the re-conditioned state-of-health value to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery; repeating the re-conditioning of the battery upon determining that the re-conditioned state-of-health value does not equal to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery; and disconnecting the battery from the electrical power source upon determining that the reconditioned state-of-health value equals to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery (Further use of the battery may cause the battery capacity to become less than a full charge capacity. At this time, reconditioning would occur to restore the battery capacity to the desired capacity. Once the desired capacity is achieved, a charger may be disconnected from the battery (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3)).
8. Claims 10 and 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky in further view of Johnson.
Per claim 10, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 9, wherein the battery includes at least one of the following: a battery call, a battery unit, a battery system, a battery brick, a battery brick group, and any combination thereof.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a procedure for performing battery reconditioning wherein a battery including a plurality of cells undergoes reconditioning (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that the battery comprises at least one battery unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a battery that is capable of powering a load (Johnson; Abstract).
Per clam 14, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 13, further comprising connecting another battery to the electrical power source for re-conditioning after disconnecting the battery; and repeating the determining a state-of-health value, determining a target state-of-health value and a number of cycles, and the re-conditioning for the another battery.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a battery recondition method wherein a plurality of battery packs are configured to be sequentially isolated from one another and reconditioned via switches (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that method further comprises connecting another battery to the electrical power source for re-conditioning after disconnecting the battery; and repeating the determining a state-of-health value, determining a target state-of-health value and a number of cycles, and the re-conditioning for the another battery. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of performing reconditioning on a battery system comprising a plurality of battery packs (Johnson; ¶29).
Per claim 15, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 9, wherein a plurality of batteries are connected to the electrical power source for reconditioning, each battery in the plurality of batteries is individually connected to the power source using corresponding converter and a relay component.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a battery recondition method wherein a plurality of battery packs are configured to be sequentially isolated from one another and reconditioned via switches (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that a plurality of batteries are connected to the electrical power source for reconditioning, each battery in the plurality of batteries is individually connected to the power source using corresponding converter and a relay component. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of performing reconditioning on a battery system comprising a plurality of battery packs (Johnson; ¶29).
Per claim 16, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky in further view of Johnson teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein an amount of electrical power demand for the plurality of batteries is determined based on an individual amount of power demanded by each battery in the plurality of batteries for at least one of the determining the state-of-health value for the battery, the re-conditioning of the battery, and any combination thereof (The amount of electrical power demand for each battery is determined by the desired capacity of the battery (Johnson; ¶28)).
9. Claims 17 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The following table summarizes the correspondence between the limitations of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 and the limitations of claim 17 of the present application.
Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769
Claim 17 of Present Application
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising:
determining a state-of-health value of a battery used for a primary application, wherein the state-of-health value of the battery is less than an original capacity value of the battery, the battery being connected to an electrical power source for re-conditioning;
determining a target state-of-health value for the battery and a number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value of the battery, each cycle in the number of cycles comprises at least one of: a charging the battery and a discharging the battery; and
re-conditioning the battery by cycling the battery using the number of cycles, wherein cycling comprises drawing electrical power from the electrical power source until a re-conditioned state-of-health value of the battery corresponding to a secondary application is reached,
wherein the target state-of-health value for the battery is determined using a battery aging model generated based on one or more prior re-conditionings of a plurality of batteries;
wherein the re-conditioning comprises determining the re-conditioned state-of-health value of a battery after performing the re-conditioning.
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising:
determining a state-of-health value of a battery, wherein the state-of-health value of the battery is less than an original capacity value of the battery, the battery being connected to an electrical power source for re-conditioning;
determining a target state-of-health value for the battery and a number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value of the battery, each cycle in the number of cycles includes at least one of: a charging the battery and a discharging the battery; and
re-conditioning the battery by cycling the battery using the determined number of cycles, wherein cycling includes drawing electrical power from the electrical power source,
wherein the target state-of-health value for the battery and the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health are determined using a battery aging model generated based on one or more prior re-conditionings of a plurality of batteries.
Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 does not explicitly teach determining the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value using the battery aging model, as specified by the computer program product of claim 17 of the present application.
In contrast, Podrazhansky teaches a method for reconditioning a battery wherein a desired capacity of the battery and a number of charge and discharge cycles to achieve the desired capacity are determined. The battery is reconditioned through a certain number of charge and discharge cycles that achieves the desired battery capacity (col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the computer program product of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 such that the battery aging model determines the number of cycles required to achieve the target state-of-health value. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of reconditioning a battery to a desired capacity (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3).
Per claim 20, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky teaches the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the re-conditioning includes determining a re-conditioned state-of-health value of a battery after performing the re-conditioning (claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769).
Per claim 21, Podrazhansky teaches a method for reconditioning a battery wherein, upon completion of reconditioning, the capacity of the battery is restored. Therefore, the battery capacity may be determined to be at the desired capacity. Further use of the battery may cause the battery capacity to become less than a full charge capacity. At this time, reconditioning would occur to restore the battery capacity to the desired capacity. Once the desired capacity is achieved, a charger may be disconnected from the battery (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50 and col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the computer program product of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that the operations further comprise comparing the re-conditioned state-of-health value to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery; repeating the re-conditioning of the battery upon determining that the re-conditioned state-of-health value does not equal to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery; and disconnecting the battery from the electrical power source upon determining that the reconditioned state-of-health value equals to the determined target state-of-health value of the battery. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of acquiring a desired restored capacity of a battery (Podrazhansky; col. 2, lines 37-50).
10. Claims 18 and 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky in further view of Johnson.
Per claim 18, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the computer program product according to claim 17, wherein the battery includes at least one of the following: a battery cell, a battery unit, a battery system, a battery brick, a battery brick group, and any combination thereof.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a procedure for performing battery reconditioning wherein a battery including a plurality of cells undergoes reconditioning (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the computer program product of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that the battery comprises at least one battery cell. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a battery that is capable of powering a load (Johnson; Abstract).
Per clam 22, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky does not explicitly teach the computer program product according to claim 21, further comprising connecting another battery to the electrical power source for re-conditioning after disconnecting the battery; and repeating the determining a state-of-health value, determining a target state-of-health value and a number of cycles, and the re-conditioning for the another battery.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a battery recondition method wherein a plurality of battery packs are configured to be sequentially isolated from one another and reconditioned via switches (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the computer program product of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that method further comprises connecting another battery to the electrical power source for re-conditioning after disconnecting the battery; and repeating the determining a state-of-health value, determining a target state-of-health value and a number of cycles, and the re-conditioning for the another battery. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of performing reconditioning on a battery system comprising a plurality of battery packs (Johnson; ¶29).
Per claim 23, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 does not explicitly teach the computer program product according to claim 17, wherein a plurality of batteries are connected to the electrical power source for reconditioning, each battery in the plurality of batteries is individually connected to the power source using corresponding converter and a relay component.
In contrast, Johnson teaches a battery recondition method wherein a plurality of battery packs are configured to be sequentially isolated from one another and reconditioned via switches (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the computer program product of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky such that a plurality of batteries are connected to the electrical power source for reconditioning, each battery in the plurality of batteries is individually connected to the power source using corresponding converter and a relay component. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of performing reconditioning on a battery system comprising a plurality of battery packs (Johnson; ¶29).
Per claim 24, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,769 in view of Podrazhansky in further view of Johnson teaches the computer program product according to claim 23, wherein an amount of electrical power demand for the plurality of batteries is determined based on an individual amount of power demanded by each battery in the plurality of batteries for at least one of the determining the state-of-health value for the battery, the re-conditioning of the battery, and any combination thereof (The amount of electrical power demand for each battery is determined by the desired capacity of the battery (Johnson; ¶28)).
Claim Objections
11. Claims 1 and 7 are objected to due to the following informalities.
In line 7 of claim 1, “batter” should be revised to “battery.”
In line 2 of claim 7, “batter” should be revised to “battery.”
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852